CBS, NBC ban ad on gay acceptance

[nageov3t]

the ad is pretty tame, but as CBS and NBC are corporations, I respect their right to chose to not air the ad. their job is to make money, not alienate viewers by airing ads that promoting social change.

morally, I think it's wrong, but their souls are more in danger of going to hell because of reality tv than because of chosing to not air a controversial ad.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Most Christian churches will accept gays into their church, but they will not hesitate to make it clear that they view homosexuality as a sin.

Tolerance of sin is most certainly not the message of Jesus. When Jesus ate with sinners he didn't do it so he could accept their sinful ways, but to offer them forgiveness.

The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin, a church that follows the Bible believes that, and so to ask them to accept homosexuality as OK simply because of the current social demand for tolerance for all lifestyle choices is NOT acceptable.

http://gotquestions.org/homosexuality.html

Yes, but a sense of proportion may be in order. I think that it would be only reasonable to expect the gospels of Christs to hold more weight in any Christian theological structure than any other book in the Bible. Note that that proposition can be supported easily by pointing out a single contradiction in the Bible. If you do not rank the various proscriptions, than the entire system breaks down. Since for many Christians the entire purpose of their lives is to become more "Christ-like," it seems reasonable to give the Gospels more weight than any other book in the Bible.

AFAIK, the only New Testament reference to homosexuality is in Romans (and let's face it, anything out of Leviticus can be thrashed in about 30 secs - that's the comedy section of the Bible). Thus, any system of beleifs that treats homosexuality as a "worse" sin than any proscription of Jesus (as found in the Gospels) is logically inconsistent.

And yet you find many attitudes among some Christians which would exhibit this inconsistency, and if challenged on these attitudes, the Christian will justify themselves by using religious rhetoric. This kind of logical inconsistency leads many non-Christians (and Christians with dissenting opinions) to beleive that theology is not the only source of these attitudes, and that a good deal of the intolerance is due to simple social prejudice.

Please educate me if I've made any errors in my reasoning.

Yes. And didn't Paul suggest that women should not speak in the Church (along with his comments on men sleeping with men, etc.) How many homophobic "Christians" demand silence of their womenfolk in Church? What is the logical principle or reason (other than bigotry, homophobia, stupidity) that allows such people to cling to the supposedly anti-homosexual words of Paul, but conveniently dismiss or forget about Paul's noxious misogynistic and racist comments??

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad?

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...

Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Actually, Jesus had some kind words to say about Eunachs -- who can be regarded as equivalent to homosexuals of today. (Eunuchs, in Jesus' time, were simply men who were not attracted to women; altho they may, in fact, be fertile and capable of siring children. Sounds like a gay man to me.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
People are confusing two things: being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't itself sinful, but when that person engages homosexual acts, that is the sin.

Being homosexual isn't a choice, but how the person acts out on his desires, is.

Homosexual acts are no more sinful than heterosexual acts. The real sin is your perverted use of xian scripture to justify your noxious homophobic biases. So sad.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
They are the epitome of the churches who seek human advancement over pleasing God.

So human advancement is incompatible with your Xian doG? Lol.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

I think that it would be only reasonable to expect the gospels of Christs to hold more weight in any Christian theological structure than any other book in the Bible

I started reading your post and stopped here. The whole Bible is God's word.

You shouldn't have stopped, I backed up that assumption with a justification.

Lev 15:19¶ And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Do you send your wife/GF/daughter/mother into exile every time she's on her rag? It's the word of God.

Lev 15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Do you consider yourself "unclean" after you go to a restaurant or other public place?

Show me how you are not being inconsistent with your reasoning. If every word in the Bible is the word of God, how do you justify breaking that word so regularly? Since you beleive that our legal system should be based on the word of God, should the separation of women who are "unclean" be legally enforced?

Edit: And what about the apocrypha? are they the word of God or not? And what about the writings that were not included in the Bible, but were considered for it? Are they the word of God? Note that most of these decisions were taken by politicians in the 5th century. Why do you blindly leave the determination of what is and isn't the word of God up to them?

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: kage69

You are right in that a lot of Christians can actually drive people away from Christ... but I hope that their actions alone do not cause you to lose faith. I believe that you can find God in the Bible if you really read it with an open mind and heart. And yes, the Bible was written over many centuries by very different people... tax collectors, lawyers, fishermen, prophets, kings, etc, but the still remaining uniformity of the Bible's message never fails to astound me, especially due to its origins.

It seems to me in my humble opinion that you've done so much Bible reading that you've totally missed that message and got lost in tiny little details.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Do you send your wife/GF/daughter/mother into exile every time she's on her rag? It's the word of God.

Lev 15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Do you consider yourself "unclean" after you go to a restaurant or other public place?

Show me how you are not being inconsistent with your reasoning. If every word in the Bible is the word of God, how do you justify breaking that word so regularly? Since you beleive that our legal system should be based on the word of God, should the separation of women who are "unclean" be legally enforced?

Xians will often argue that Jesus? sacrifice made redundant the old laws (Leviticus) (with the exception of the Ten Commandments) when faced with the kinds of objections you've raised above. So let's check out some of St. Paul's charming and respectful NT comments pertaining to women:

4 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Eph. 5:22-24)

12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.


Let's face it, Paul was an ignorant bigot. He was a misogynist, a homophobe, a racist. That's not surprising, he was raised in a racist, patriarchal, macho culture. What I would like to know is this: how does the contemporary Xian reject (or fail to adhere to) St. Paul's advice re: women, and also his racist comments re: Jewish people, but choose to 'respect' or value Paul's comments which (allegedly) condemn homosexual sex acts? What is the logical principle that allows this? Is there some logic behind this, or are contemporary Xians simply (and dishonestly) **cherry-picking** Xian scripture in order to justify their PRE-EXISTING biases against gays or against homosexual sex? It seems to me that people come to the xian scripture with an antihomosexual bias, and sure enough (suprise, surprise) they find textual material to "support" their antigay position. They can't do this, however, without sacrificing logical consistency and hence without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. It is a dishonest approach to scripture.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Do you send your wife/GF/daughter/mother into exile every time she's on her rag? It's the word of God.

Lev 15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Do you consider yourself "unclean" after you go to a restaurant or other public place?

Show me how you are not being inconsistent with your reasoning. If every word in the Bible is the word of God, how do you justify breaking that word so regularly? Since you beleive that our legal system should be based on the word of God, should the separation of women who are "unclean" be legally enforced?

Read my post again:

Leviticus is not a "comedy section" as someone pointed out earlier; it still provides valuable teachings. Christians today, if they follow the Bible properly, will generally reject the civil laws, cermonial laws, and enforcement of moral laws, as enumerated in the Old Testament. These were designed for the ancient Israelites and no longer apply today. However, we still follow the moral laws themselves; none of them have been nullified. So when someone says, "No one takes the Bible literally, or we'd be stoning adulterers," remember that the Bible can be followed literally, although we must reject ordinances put in place for something that doesn't exist anymore (the kingdom of Israel). God's morality does not change, though Christ's death and resurrection did change the way we respond to transgressions.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Leviticus is not a "comedy section" as someone pointed out earlier; it still provides valuable teachings. Christians today, if they follow the Bible properly, will generally reject the civil laws, cermonial laws, and enforcement of moral laws, as enumerated in the Old Testament. These were designed for the ancient Israelites and no longer apply today. However, we still follow the moral laws themselves; none of them have been nullified. So when someone says, "No one takes the Bible literally, or we'd be stoning adulterers," remember that the Bible can be followed literally, although we must reject ordinances put in place for something that doesn't exist anymore (the kingdom of Israel). God's morality does not change, though Christ's death and resurrection did change the way we respond to transgressions.

[/quote]

What precisely do you see as valuable in Leviticus? Who determines what is to be considered "following the Buybull properly"?

Which "moral laws" exactly do you still follow? Specifically, do you see the aspects of Leviticus pertaining to male-male anal sex as laws pertaining to ritual purity (i.e., ceremonial laws) and therefore not relevant to the contemporary Xian (as with laws pertaining to mensturation) or are you suggesting that the laws pertaining to male-male anal sex are somehow moral laws that should still be followed today by the "proper" Xian? If you do see the wisdom in Leviticus' stance on male-male anal sex, do you advocate the execution of sexually active homosexual males for the sake of logical consistency (the inerrant word of God)?

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Do you send your wife/GF/daughter/mother into exile every time she's on her rag? It's the word of God.

Lev 15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Do you consider yourself "unclean" after you go to a restaurant or other public place?

Show me how you are not being inconsistent with your reasoning. If every word in the Bible is the word of God, how do you justify breaking that word so regularly? Since you beleive that our legal system should be based on the word of God, should the separation of women who are "unclean" be legally enforced?

Xians will often argue that Jesus? sacrifice made redundant the old laws (Leviticus) (with the exception of the Ten Commandments) when faced with the kinds of objections you've raised above. So let's check out some of St. Paul's charming and respectful NT comments pertaining to women:

4 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Eph. 5:22-24)

12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.


Let's face it, Paul was an ignorant bigot. He was a misogynist, a homophobe, a racist. That's not surprising, he was raised in a racist, patriarchal, macho culture. What I would like to know is this: how does the contemporary Xian reject (or fail to adhere to) St. Paul's advice re: women, and also his racist comments re: Jewish people, but choose to 'respect' or value Paul's comments which (allegedly) condemn homosexual sex acts? What is the logical principle that allows this? Is there some logic behind this, or are contemporary Xians simply (and dishonestly) **cherry-picking** Xian scripture in order to justify their PRE-EXISTING biases against gays or against homosexual sex? It seems to me that people come to the xian scripture with an antihomosexual bias, and sure enough (suprise, surprise) they find textual material to "support" their antigay position. They can't do this, however, without sacrificing logical consistency and hence without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. It is a dishonest approach to scripture.

Unless you've conduct intense study (including comparative analysis) of the Bible and of Paul's letters, you don't really have the authority to characterize Paul in that manner.

It's absolutely true that Paul placed the husband as the head of the household; this teaching still applies today. But if the husband is truly worshipping Jesus properly, this will present no burden to the wife; it rather gives the household stability, strength and unity. Of course, when non-Christians look at those verses, they become confused.

For me to properly explain Paul's teachings regarding marriage would take hours. But, the truth is that along with their authority, the husbands are given the commandment to love and respect their wives.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Do you send your wife/GF/daughter/mother into exile every time she's on her rag? It's the word of God.

Lev 15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Do you consider yourself "unclean" after you go to a restaurant or other public place?

Show me how you are not being inconsistent with your reasoning. If every word in the Bible is the word of God, how do you justify breaking that word so regularly? Since you beleive that our legal system should be based on the word of God, should the separation of women who are "unclean" be legally enforced?

Xians will often argue that Jesus? sacrifice made redundant the old laws (Leviticus) (with the exception of the Ten Commandments) when faced with the kinds of objections you've raised above. So let's check out some of St. Paul's charming and respectful NT comments pertaining to women:

4 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Eph. 5:22-24)

12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.


Let's face it, Paul was an ignorant bigot. He was a misogynist, a homophobe, a racist. That's not surprising, he was raised in a racist, patriarchal, macho culture. What I would like to know is this: how does the contemporary Xian reject (or fail to adhere to) St. Paul's advice re: women, and also his racist comments re: Jewish people, but choose to 'respect' or value Paul's comments which (allegedly) condemn homosexual sex acts? What is the logical principle that allows this? Is there some logic behind this, or are contemporary Xians simply (and dishonestly) **cherry-picking** Xian scripture in order to justify their PRE-EXISTING biases against gays or against homosexual sex? It seems to me that people come to the xian scripture with an antihomosexual bias, and sure enough (suprise, surprise) they find textual material to "support" their antigay position. They can't do this, however, without sacrificing logical consistency and hence without sacrificing their intellectual integrity. It is a dishonest approach to scripture.

Unless you've conduct intense study (including comparative analysis) of the Bible and of Paul's letters, you don't really have the authority to characterize Paul in that manner.

It's absolutely true that Paul placed the husband as the head of the household; this teaching still applies today. But if the husband is truly worshipping Jesus properly, this will present no burden to the wife; it rather gives the household stability, strength and unity. Of course, when non-Christians look at those verses, they become confused.

For me to properly explain Paul's teachings regarding marriage would take hours. But, the truth is that along with their authority, the husbands are given the commandment to love and respect their wives.

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

Yes?

"the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says."

Yes?

"If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Yes?

Sounds like an ignorant bigot to me.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

Yes?

"the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says."

Yes?

"If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Yes?

Sounds like an ignorant bigot to me.

No, in fact those instructions were applicable at the time they were written. Women within the Roman empire were by Roman law completely subject to their husbands. To suddenly give women complete freedom in the church would have brought all sorts of problems, including possibly the attempt by Christian women to exercise freedom in life outside the church, which probably would bring upon them more harm than benefits.

As far as the applicability for today is concerned: Paul's use of expressions like "should" and "I permit" tend to indicate that these are local commandments, not applicable to all Christians. Their applicability, I suppose, would depend on how much legal freedom women have in a given region. (I'd be far more willing to apply these instructions in a culture like Saudi Arabia's than I would in one like that of the U.S., simply because women exercising too much freedom in repressive societies open themselves to danger. In the context of the time of Paul's letters, Paul was wise to include those restrictions.)

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad?

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...

Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Actually, Jesus had some kind words to say about Eunachs -- who can be regarded as equivalent to homosexuals of today. (Eunuchs, in Jesus' time, were simply men who were not attracted to women; altho they may, in fact, be fertile and capable of siring children. Sounds like a gay man to me.)

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." so EVERYONE in jesus' company was equally destined, by inherited sin and those they commited, to die. he was compassionate and saw good in everyone. that was his purpose, not to pass judgement for his Father, but to offer hope to everyone. his acceptance of what's his face was in line with his acceptance of every sinner (especially those receptive to his message), and the nature of his sin was not an issue.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." so EVERYONE in jesus' company was equally destined, by inherited sin and those they commited, to die. he was compassionate and saw good in everyone. that was his purpose, not to pass judgement for his Father, but to offer hope to everyone. his acceptance of what's his face was in line with his acceptance of every sinner (especially those receptive to his message), and the nature of his sin was not an issue.

Be careful of equating loving everyone with seeing good in everyone. The Bible is clear that no one is good on their own. (No one can enter heaven without accepting Jesus' propitiation through his work on the cross.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

Yes?

"the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says."

Yes?

"If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Yes?

Sounds like an ignorant bigot to me.

No, in fact those instructions were applicable at the time they were written. Women within the Roman empire were by Roman law completely subject to their husbands. To suddenly give women complete freedom in the church would have brought all sorts of problems, including possibly the attempt by Christian women to exercise freedom in life outside the church, which probably would bring upon them more harm than benefits.

As far as the applicability for today is concerned: Paul's use of expressions like "should" and "I permit" tend to indicate that these are local commandments, not applicable to all Christians. Their applicability, I suppose, would depend on how much legal freedom women have in a given region. (I'd be far more willing to apply these instructions in a culture like Saudi Arabia's than I would in one like that of the U.S., simply because women exercising too much freedom in repressive societies open themselves to danger. In the context of the time of Paul's letters, Paul was wise to include those restrictions.)

Interesting. So you are saying contemporary Xians can safely ignore Paul's suggestion that women refrain from speaking in the church, because 1) this suggestion was "applicable at the time that they were written" under Roman law, and 2) Pauls use of words/ phrases 'should' and 'I permit' "tend to indicate these are local commanments not applicable to all Xians"??? I don't follow your line of thought here, at all. How does use of 'should' and 'I permit' indicate Paul's suggestion women refrain from speaking in Church is a "local commandment"? Are these suggestions of Paul that women refrain from speaking in Church any more "local" than Paul's comments re: homosexuality? Or are his comments on homosexuality somehow "universal commandments", as opposed to being "local commandments"? If this is the case, then please explain why his comments on homosexual sex are "universal" but his comments on women speaking in Church are "local". By the way, was homosexual sex illegal under Roman law in Paul's time??? Interestingly, Paul did not specifically suggest people should refrain from engaging in homosexual sex acts. (Whereas he did, very explicitly, forbid women from speaking in Church or from taking roles of authority over men). Therefore I do wonder how Paul's writings can be used as support for a condemnation of homosexual sex acts if one is also not willing to criticise women speaking in church, women teaching men or having roles of authority over men, women wearing their hair long, and so on. It is my contention that Xians such as yourself are cherry-picking elements of the scripture that support your homophobic & heterosexist biases (anti-gay, anti-homosexual, assuming that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality). How else can one explain your glaringly lack of consistency re: what you choose to practice and what you choose to ignore in the Bible?
[/quote]

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Be careful of equating loving everyone with seeing good in everyone. The Bible is clear that no one is good on their own. (No one can enter heaven without accepting Jesus' propitiation through his work on the cross.)

You still haven't explained exactly why the raft of prohibitions in Leviticus are to be discarded, oh, EXCEPT for the prohibitions on homosexuality.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
As far as the applicability for today is concerned: Paul's use of expressions like "should" and "I permit" tend to indicate that these are local commandments, not applicable to all Christians. Their applicability, I suppose, would depend on how much legal freedom women have in a given region. (I'd be far more willing to apply these instructions in a culture like Saudi Arabia's than I would in one like that of the U.S., simply because women exercising too much freedom in repressive societies open themselves to danger. In the context of the time of Paul's letters, Paul was wise to include those restrictions.)

THAT'S interesting. Just as well we live in a time when gay sex is no longer illegal, and sexually active homosexuals are no longer subject to either extrajudicial murder or execution or legal sanction at the hands of the state. Following your logic, above, given the changing times, I guess we homosexuals no longer need pay heed to Paul's snarky comments re: homosexuality. Thank Christ. Now I can get scr*wed up the ass & feel no guilt or shame, comfortable in the knowledge that what I am doing is entirely compatible with the "proper" interpretation of Xian scripture. What a relief, thanks.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So much for the liberal media mantra.

you guys have some really thick heads I see....

The bottom line for them is ratings and the allmighty dollar, so while much of the reporting and the programming is highly liberal, they are not going to go about shooting themselves in the ass by upsetting a major portion of their viewers and or dropping popular, ratings attracting stories because they lean right. Liberal Media comment still holds true even though from time to time they do something to contradict this in the name of profits/ratings.

I was going to say the exact same thing. While the big 3 television networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) aren't completely frothing at the mouth from slanted reporting, there is a definite lean to the left and it's just silly to deny so. Of course, when profit is threatened both the left and the right can go to hell - the networks have mouths to feed and luxury cars to buy.

"We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."

Zing! I can't stand Will & Grace - not because of the in-your-face jokes about homosexuality, but because that's all they EVER seem to joke about...

Reminds me in fact of something I read about feminism finally being "defeated" as a real cause by...mainstream media acceptance. To summarize: Once strong, assertive single women began appearing on television it was like the Borg took hold. First we had the conservative modern working woman who met men in the boardroom toe-to-toe. Then, oddly, her skirts started to get shorter and shorter until it became something known as the miniskirt. Half the audience tuned in to watch these empowered women just to ogle their legs, among other parts.

It seems to be much the same case with homosexuality. Sure, 'accept' them - then solidify them in the roles we want them to be cast as. Women on TV today - assertive, can crack a joke on the spot as good as any guy, not afraid to flaunt her body and jump into bed with any guy she pleases. Gays on TV today - well to do, great dressers, speak with high voices and get hyper really easily. Ha, ha. Hilarious stuff.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: yllus
I can't stand Will & Grace - not because of the in-your-face jokes about homosexuality, but because that's all they EVER seem to joke about...

Isn't that the premise of the show? it's exploiting aspects of a stereotypical gay culture for comedic purpose. if you want complexity in the portrayal of minorities then a sitcom is probably not the best place to look.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." so EVERYONE in jesus' company was equally destined, by inherited sin and those they commited, to die. he was compassionate and saw good in everyone. that was his purpose, not to pass judgement for his Father, but to offer hope to everyone. his acceptance of what's his face was in line with his acceptance of every sinner (especially those receptive to his message), and the nature of his sin was not an issue.

Be careful of equating loving everyone with seeing good in everyone. The Bible is clear that no one is good on their own. (No one can enter heaven without accepting Jesus' propitiation through his work on the cross.)

minor detail.... my point still remains valid. also, jesus didn't die on a cross. that's a pagan symbol that was thrown into christianity along with the easter bunny, christmas, and other popular christian ideas/celebrations. oh.... and show me where it says "enter heaven". shouldn't that be "kingdom of God"? the bible CLEARLY states that "the meek shall inherit the earth." not sure where you got heaven from that, but whatever.


EDIT: also, your insights on a woman's place is way out in left field. leniency is not granted based on a person's culture. "be no part of this world, just as i am no part of this world". therefore, a person's allegence to a culture/institutions is void within the restraints of God's law. "pay ceaser's things to ceaser, and God's things to God". and the bible is very explicit about a woman maintaining a submissive role in the family structure to her husband. she is the "weaker vessel". that still applies today.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
As far as the applicability for today is concerned: Paul's use of expressions like "should" and "I permit" tend to indicate that these are local commandments, not applicable to all Christians. Their applicability, I suppose, would depend on how much legal freedom women have in a given region. (I'd be far more willing to apply these instructions in a culture like Saudi Arabia's than I would in one like that of the U.S., simply because women exercising too much freedom in repressive societies open themselves to danger. In the context of the time of Paul's letters, Paul was wise to include those restrictions.)

THAT'S interesting. Just as well we live in a time when gay sex is no longer illegal, and sexually active homosexuals are no longer subject to either extrajudicial murder or execution or legal sanction at the hands of the state. Following your logic, above, given the changing times, I guess we homosexuals no longer need pay heed to Paul's snarky comments re: homosexuality. Thank Christ. Now I can get scr*wed up the ass & feel no guilt or shame, comfortable in the knowledge that what I am doing is entirely compatible with the "proper" interpretation of Xian scripture. What a relief, thanks.

"8 Now we know that the Law is fine provided one handles it lawfully 9 in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10 fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching 11 according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted." Paul's words to timothy.

"9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God?s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God?s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God" To the Corinthians.

i think Paul was pretty clear on God's view of homosexuality.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
"8 Now we know that the Law is fine provided one handles it lawfully 9 in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10 fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching 11 according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted." Paul's words to timothy.

"9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God?s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God?s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God" To the Corinthians.

i think Paul was pretty clear on God's view of homosexuality.

No, it's not clear to me. Maybe you'd like to spell it out. All he says, above, is that "men who lie with men" won't inherit God's kingdom. So what? I'm not going to read between the lines or infer for you. There is no specific recommendation here that one is not to have sex with another person of the same gender. No comments pertaining to lesbian sex, at all. And contemporary Biblical scholars say the translation "men lying with men" -- taken as refering to all male-male homosexual acts in all contexts -- is problematic and misleading anyway. In contrast look at the SPECIFIC RECOMENDATIONS and SUGGESTIONS made by Paul pertaining to women's behavior: Women are to refrain from speaking in the Church, are to obey their husband as a master, are never to assume a position of authority over men, are never to presume to teach men, and so on. These suggestions of Paul are very clear to me, because he spells them out in clear, direct, precise language -- unlike his vague snarky/ bitchy comments re: homosexual sex acts.

I'd guess that you yourself SCRUPULOUSLY follow Paul's suggestions re: the appropriate behavior of women, demanding that your mother, sisters, wife remain UTTERLY SILENT in Church, insisting on absolute obediance from your wife, ensuring that she cuts her hair short, wears no jewellry, and so on, is this correct?

Another choice comment from Paul:

Corinthians, 11:14: "Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Shame on the guys here at Anandtech with long hair. Shame, shame, shame.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
You still haven't explained exactly why the raft of prohibitions in Leviticus are to be discarded, oh, EXCEPT for the prohibitions on homosexuality.

Did we get an answer on this?

 

[Gen Stonewall]

EDIT: also, your insights on a woman's place is way out in left field. leniency is not granted based on a person's culture. "be no part of this world, just as i am no part of this world". therefore, a person's allegence to a culture/institutions is void within the restraints of God's law. "pay ceaser's things to ceaser, and God's things to God". and the bible is very explicit about a woman maintaining a submissive role in the family structure to her husband. she is the "weaker vessel". that still applies today.

I agree entirely: Men should have the dominant role in the church (as Paul commands); i.e., the positions of pastors and elders should be limited to men, for the same purpose of unity and strength that such a position is created for in marriage. I'm just not sure that in today's culture that it is "shameful for a woman to speak in church." Paul seems to be addressing a reality of the time.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
You still haven't explained exactly why the raft of prohibitions in Leviticus are to be discarded, oh, EXCEPT for the prohibitions on homosexuality.

As I said earlier, Christians discard ceremonial law, civil law, and enforcement of moral law as outlined in the OT. Moral law itself is still kept.